|
Hi All,
I pretty much agree with just about all of what
Michael suggests. We could have a DY1 and DY2. But it would be complicated.
Having just given years of my life to the compilation and analysis of the GBS, I
think it is complicated enough. Notice the way that I have grouped categories
for the timing of breeding graphs on pages 106-107 of the 21 Year GBS Report
(not in the 18 year report). The small data set and changes in the instructions
over the years made that necessary but the result is nice and clear. Also COG
has just issued a new V6 GBS chart (though I have not looked at it closely). The
problem is that many observers won't actually know which (DY1 and DY2) it is and
there is this culture of "if in doubt leave it out". People, especially new
chums won't know and so we won't get the information, when we
should.
The point is that Michael can and has just
demonstrated it, from the safety of his home, use his skilled professional
intellect in exactly the same way that I did, to fill in the gaps. The
GBS Reports make the distinction as to whether actual breeding is likely to have
been within the area or not. Although I admit I didn't give it the clarity that
Michael is suggesting. We can be sure that all those King-Parrot DY were
born somewhere else unknown, far from the GBS site. The point is that the
absence of ne, ny, etc observations associated with earlier weeks leading
to the DY, makes it obvious that that is what is happening. If ever we do get a
ne, ny, etc that is associated with latter King-Parrot DY observations, then the
point will be known that they bred there from those data, without having to
separately code DY1 & DY2. Indeed the subsequent existence of DY1 or DY2
would be trivial or irrelevant. The same applies to all other species. See my
text in the GBS Reports about recording breeding in pardalotes, in which the
opposite problem exists. Even for a Magpie it is not always that simple. My GBS
site in Fyshwick has no big trees at all and nowhere for Magpies to breed but
post fledging families may pass by. My arbitrary rules for DY Magpies at home in
Kambah would then be quite different to that applying from Fyshwick. The point
is that at home I do record ne, ny, etc observations and I think that or the
lack thereof (either for the one site or for broad trends of the GBS) does
already provide, without becoming complicated, the information that Michael
is suggesting.
Philip
|
